I am sorry but i simply disagree. If the cyclist kicked the car it strikes me that the driver overreacted hugely and imperilled his life. In all likelihood the driver drover far too close to being with and that was the reason for the reaction. I drive many large gas guzzling lumps and i really see it all. Cyclists are often poorly behaved but i will not settle my grievance by driving into them or making death threats. No way. If i was driving i would have got out and helped the cyclist frankly.

well I do to care if he has apologised that cyclist had a right t sue the road without someone threatening to kill him and driving into him on purpose.

I WILL NEVER EVER USE [..] AGAIN EVER.

Think this could have been your father/brother/son/mother/daughter etc etc and it may not have ended so well.

I vote that Brew gets punished as an example to theory loony drivers trying to kill our children.

Anyway he was prosecuted too.

Ok, so you won't use this coffee shop (and I don't want to mention it as I do not support the boycott) ever again because "he is the perfect example of the loony driver trying to kill our children."
I agree that the driver's behaviour was horrific and I am glad he got convicted for it. However, I am not sure that trying to ruin his business is the solution but that's my very personal opinion.
Moreover, I go to work everyday with my scooter, can someone explain to me what do make cyclists over the rules? Why are they allowed to go at the red light, to do not let pedestrians crossing, to listen to their music (and not hearing anything around them), to overtake without indicating or even looking? Do they have a special driving licence to be ABOVE the rules?
Because if they want to take these risks then fine by me but don't involve anyone else in them. By going at the red light, they put in danger our kids who we have taught to cross only when it is green for them, and by not being aware of the traffic because they are listening to their music they put kids going to school in a car at risk as well as they could pull over a front of a mummy going to drop their kids at school forcing her to break brutally and risking her kids to be hurt.
By reading your comments guys, I feel like only motorists drivers are the ones putting at risk our children's lives but I have to say that I personally believe that your statement is wrong, it is people who do not respect the rules who put our children's lives at risk whichever motoring engine or not they use.
Don't you think that the cyclist who knew he was filming did not intentionally use those words to enrage the driver? Oh but yes some people said he has apologised, and then put the video on youtube, isn't it easy? Does anyone ask if the driver wanted to apologise as well? And if he were to apologise, would people say the same than for the cyclist, i.e. it is all fine now as he has said sorry, I am sorry but I doubt.
Nobody is forced to use any type of commuting, you are the decision maker.
And if it is too stressful, then maybe try the life in the countryside
To the wise people....

What about the other cyclist that stopped & tried to calm it all down?Sshame there isn't more about him and less about the 4x4 driver & cyclist, I dread to think how many times they both used the "c" word, quite appalling to say the least.

The other cyclist deserves a mention for trying to calm down a clearly out of control situation between the 4x4 driver & cyclist.

Moreover, I go to work everyday with my scooter, can someone explain to me what do make cyclists over the rules?

I note that many many scooters are also a complete pain on the road. Often as not filtering into the cycle only boxes in front of my car and one ran me over the other day from behind (I had right of way and yes he is being p[prosecuted. It is individuals who are idiots not the form of transport.

as i said i use motorbikes, 4 x 4s and large sports cars and the rest everything but a tank. But I never threaten to kill anyone or drive these at people; it is like getting a gun out when someone chucks a chip wrapper in your garden this is the point here. It was potentially lethal.

In my opinion, road rage and abuses are not acceptable behaviors - both from the drivers and the cyclist.

As a side comment related to this footage, I still have a question (and it is a question I ask myself everyday when I drive across Wandsworth bridge...):
Why is the cyclist not using the cycle lane?

It is safer and designed for the cyclist. It separates motor and non-motor traffic for a safety reason.

I can only talk from my personal experience on Wandsworth bridge.
The road on Wandsworth bridge is a very narrow 2 lane. There are literally not space for the cyclist on the main carriage - hence why TFL have designed a cycle lane on the pavement.
But every morning, I see cyclists using the main carriage and being push between the pavement and the car in a very dangerous manner.

I don't understand why they don't use the cyclist lane. Any explanation?

FrenchMummyInLondon wrote:
I don't understand why they don't use the cyclist lane. Any explanation?

A lot of cycle lanes aren't particularly well maintained, with lots of debris and potholes, which pose a very high risk of a puncture. I would sooner take my chances on the road than risk getting a puncture which causes me to lose control of a bike and fall off into the path of traffic. Even the process of getting over the kerb onto the path risks getting a 'pinch puncture', and that is assuming that there aren't lots of pedestrians on it as well.

The cycle path on Roehampton Lane is particularly bad, with part of it going straight through the driveway of The Priory and the National Tennis Centre, several metres back from the junction. So if a car is pulling out of there, they have absolutely no idea that a cyclist could come past them, short of where they would expect to come to a stop for the junction, and the cyclist has no warning or visability that a car might pull out in front of them.

Ironically, the northbound Wandsworth Bridge cycle path ends at the exact point the road becomes most dangerous - when 2 lanes become 3 at the traffic lights, forcing the cyclists to rejoin the carriageway at the exact point that cars will be moving the left.
In my opinion, it is safer for the cyclist to stay on the road for the length of the bridge and be visable to cars before and at the traffic lights than to appear at the lights when drivers won't have seen them coming, and those in the left hand lane will be focused on turning left rather than giving way to a cyclist who wants to go straight on or turn right. Staying on the carriageway gives them plenty of time to get into the correct lane rather than having a scum at the lights.

Agree 100% with this. Another issue with bike lanes is that in many, cars are allowed to park which makes them redundant. Burntwood Lane is an example of this. I always ride on the road and try to make myself visible and communicate with other road users as best I can.

Think he says he'd had the cyclist for breakfast. Think a few people won't be having Brew breakfast after seeing that. Totally over the top response by the driver. And did he not see the cyclist's camera on his helmet. Not a smart move

Wouldn't fret too much about NV getting a lawyer's letter. It's been confirmed it's him. He has admitted it - and that's in the public domain with his name/identity against his quoted admission & apology.

Nasty people are nasty whether they are behind a wheel or on a bicycle but the nasty person behind the wheel of a road legal tank can do a lot more damage than a nasty person on a bicycle. i would not like to work for this leather clad bully. I can't imaging Bill the owner of Bills being aggressive to another person so Bills it is from now on

Don't know whether it's coincidence but walked past at 7.30pm on very sunny evening last Thursday and everywhere with outside seating was rammed - but place in question was almost empty. Waiter actually trying to hand out menus to passers by to get them inside! Not normally there in evening and always busy at lunchtimes so maybe it's more of a day time place.

If you're driving close enough to a cyclist that they can easily reach out and touch your car, you're being a shitty driver! The cyclist has as much right to be on the road, in the centre of the lane if they like, and you can see in the video this guy was almost pushed off it by Brew man compared to previous drivers who had given him a much wider berth.

I cycle to work everyday and to the local shops and park at the weekend but I have a 4x4 for family trips and boat kit etc. I think I can see from both sides.
Cycling in London is growing at a fast rate (over 10% a year according to TfL) and should be encouraged for the obvious benefits to the cyclist and the environment. The growing number of cyclists need to be accommodated on the highway system by road planning and investment in cycle lanes and safe junctions etc but I think there needs to better understanding of cycling on roads from both the user (cyclists) and those around them (motorist/pedestrian). There are many issues to cover but educating both sides is vital to achieve harmony. How many cyclists have been trained to use roadways (Cycle Proficiency Test) - some may not be drivers and may not have passed a vehicle exam. Why not have a specific test on cycle awareness in the driving test?
At the end of the day what is required is simply respect and understanding of each other to share the highway. After all each of us pass 100's of people every day on the street, in doorways and in shops without much need for pushing and shoving and verbal abuse. (I exclude the 8.05 from Clapham Junction to Waterloo from the above analogy!)